4 Fantasy Fights

First topic message reminder :

Burly v Ward (12rds)

Ward v Hagler (12rds)

Ward v Hagler (15rds)

Hagler v Froch (15rds)


Long for the return of fifteen rounders, where the things that old time boxing fans used to cherish come into play - heart and stamina...

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Of course Ward is better than Burley, how silly of me.

?

Because Hearns bust his right hand in the first round. That's the most staggered I've seen Hagler. Imagine if Tommy could have landed another one in the second round. But what can you do with a busted hand!


There can be no arguing Ward's dominance. Just won the Super Six. Beat the best in his division. Calzaghe didn't. This is a better crop too. Magine if Calzaghe had a Ward, Froch and Dirrell to deal with.

Charley Burley is widely considered to be one of the most talented and technically proficient boxers of all time so it's not really guesswork considering him a better fighter than Ward. I'm more than happy to take the testimonies of his fellow fighters who included Moore, Charles, Wade, Lytell, Marshall, Williams, Bivins and Cocoa Kid i'm happy to think of him as an undoubted world class operator who's level is superior to that of Wards current level.

Herman Jaggery wrote:Because Hearns bust his right hand in the first round. That's the most staggered I've seen Hagler. Imagine if Tommy could have landed another one in the second round. But what can you do with a busted hand!


There can be no arguing Ward's dominance. Just won the Super Six. Beat the best in his division. Calzaghe didn't. This is a better crop too. Magine if Calzaghe had a Ward, Froch and Dirrell to deal with.

It broke on Hagler's head. It wouldn't have affected the outcome either way.

The only way Tommy wins would be if he got on his bike, stuck out the jab and tried to outbox Hagler. But on that night Hagler didn;t give him the chance. He literally jjumped on him from R1. Gambled that he could take his punch and prevail.

manos de piedra wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Of course Ward is better than Burley, how silly of me.

?

Good luck Manos. Prepare for the petulance when certain sacred cows are questioned. I'm keeping out of this one.

Enjoy.

Herman Jaggery wrote:Because Hearns bust his right hand in the first round. That's the most staggered I've seen Hagler. Imagine if Tommy could have landed another one in the second round. But what can you do with a busted hand!


There can be no arguing Ward's dominance. Just won the Super Six. Beat the best in his division. Calzaghe didn't. This is a better crop too. Magine if Calzaghe had a Ward, Froch and Dirrell to deal with.

Excuses get made for losses all the time, Hearns lost decisively so there was never any real need for a rematch.

There is arguing Wards dominance as there are still fighters including Bute who he needs to beat to fully stabilise his position as the divisions number one, dominance takes time and can't be considered after just 4 fights. Calzaghe had Kessler to deal with better than both Froch and Dirrell, lets imagine if Ward had Calzaghe, Toney and Jones to deal with.

You think Kessler is better than Froch and Dirrell. Fine, I think Froch is better than Calzaghe, would have beaten him directly post Pascal. No problem if you disagree. You seem to have a problem I rate Froch above Calzaghe.

If Ward had Jones, Toney and Calzaghe to deal with, I bet at least he would have boxed them.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Charley Burley is widely considered to be one of the most talented and technically proficient boxers of all time so it's not really guesswork considering him a better fighter than Ward. I'm more than happy to take the testimonies of his fellow fighters who included Moore, Charles, Wade, Lytell, Marshall, Williams, Bivins and Cocoa Kid i'm happy to think of him as an undoubted world class operator who's level is superior to that of Wards current level.

So why resort to silly remarks? Nobody said Ward was better. Nobody said Burley wasnt world class. They just anticipated a potentially close fight.

Burley was a great fighter in his era, I believe Ward is on his way to being one in his own.

Given how little footage there is of Burley its difficult to draw concrete conclusions on him in respect of someone like Ward. Theres barely anyone alive who has watched him in depth and is in a position to draw like for like comparisons for Ward. Direct comparisons are very difficult. Who would win the fight is speculation, not fact as is who was stronger, faster or more skilled.

Ward is stronger - but for everything else - Burley was quicker, more skilled.

As for the skillset - this is a guy who was given a reasonable chance against a WW sugar ray robinson. Compared with Ward?

Come on Manos - its the same thing as discussing old time fighters. There's no footage of Wilde either - its not hard to realise that he's p4p a bigger puncher.

oxring wrote:Ward is stronger - but for everything else - Burley was quicker, more skilled.

As for the skillset - this is a guy who was given a reasonable chance against a WW sugar ray robinson. Compared with Ward?

Come on Manos - its the same thing as discussing old time fighters. There's no footage of Wilde either - its not hard to realise that he's p4p a bigger puncher.

Because you have a record documenting Wildes knock outs. Its far harder to say if he was faster than Canto without actually looking at the pair in action.

Its passing off opinion as fact by saying the concensus of experts is that Burley has the better skillset. What experts have come out and said that? What experts witnessed both guys and drew a comparison? Who can say with real authority having never seen Burley fight? You say the only area Ward has an advantage in is strength? I would suspect he has a better inside game than Burley for instance. And if he could impose that on him he has every chance of winning.

You are comparing first hand information with Ward against second and third hand information across a huge gap in eras. We dont need footage to tell if one fighter was great or not but in head to head matches its very important if you want to try and get any kind of decent picture. Personally I think these fantasy fights involving fighters from vastly different times that we have no footage of can only throw up wildly speculative answers as not being able to see a fighter in action is a massive disadvantage. Boxing is fought in the ring, not on paper.

As it happens, as I posted previously, I happen to agree that the documented style of Burley which has been likened to Jones would be the kind of style that I believe Ward would find hard to dea with. But how can I go out on limb and say how fast Burley was?, how he copes with the size difference? When I havent seen him in action properly?

From what I've read, Burley is compared to Jones but without the unorthodoxy or Jones' speed. I dont see that comparison as being valid because it was Jones' unorthodoxy that made him unique.

manos de piedra wrote:

oxring wrote:Ward is stronger - but for everything else - Burley was quicker, more skilled.

As for the skillset - this is a guy who was given a reasonable chance against a WW sugar ray robinson. Compared with Ward?

Come on Manos - its the same thing as discussing old time fighters. There's no footage of Wilde either - its not hard to realise that he's p4p a bigger puncher.

Because you have a record documenting Wildes knock outs. Its far harder to say if he was faster than Canto without actually looking at the pair in action.

Its passing off opinion as fact by saying the concensus of experts is that Burley has the better skillset. What experts have come out and said that? What experts witnessed both guys and drew a comparison? Who can say with real authority having never seen Burley fight? You say the only area Ward has an advantage in is strength? I would suspect he has a better inside game than Burley for instance. And if he could impose that on him he has every chance of winning.

You are comparing first hand information with Ward against second and third hand information across a huge gap in eras. We dont need footage to tell if one fighter was great or not but in head to head matches its very important if you want to try and get any kind of decent picture. Personally I think these fantasy fights involving fighters from vastly different times that we have no footage of can only throw up wildly speculative answers as not being able to see a fighter in action is a massive disadvantage. Boxing is fought in the ring, not on paper.

As it happens, as I posted previously, I happen to agree that the documented style of Burley which has been likened to Jones would be the kind of style that I believe Ward would find hard to dea with. But how can I go out on limb and say how fast Burley was?, how he copes with the size difference? When I havent seen him in action properly?

We're in danger of going back to the "old timers" debate.

I never saw the generalship of Alexander - but those who did thought it was outstanding. I didn't see the campaigns of Rommel in North Africa. I haven't heard Paganini play - although I have heard/tried some of his works. I didn't see Man o War run - other than Windy - I don't know of anyone who has - so I have to trust the written avowed testimony of some decent sources.

Its prediction, not life or death. Were you to put a gun to the head and pick a winner - you'd pick the guy you'd seen or avoid picking at all. But putatively? I will trust second hand evidence on his style and skills.

The evidence points to Burley struggling with bigger men with lightning jabs. Ward is the bigger man, but he doesn't have a jab of lightning - although he does have an excellent command of space. But compared with Burley? No-one had a better command of space than Burley - that was one of his great strengths.
------------------------
Az - you do realise that your last statement was ridiculous right?

I dont actually. This thread made me look up Burley and one article I read stated just that. Jones' had similar moved to Burley but Jones was more unorthodox and was faster.

Either that or the word "mercurial" was used. Can't be ar$ed to look for it.

How do you know that? Based on one article? Have you watched him fight?

oxring wrote:How do you know that? Based on one article? Have you watched him fight?

Its on a you tube video of him fighting. In it he is referred to as a boxing genius and a master of space and timing.

Get your defensive posture outta here Oxy. I'm not slating him. He had good findermentals.

oxring wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

oxring wrote:Ward is stronger - but for everything else - Burley was quicker, more skilled.

As for the skillset - this is a guy who was given a reasonable chance against a WW sugar ray robinson. Compared with Ward?

Come on Manos - its the same thing as discussing old time fighters. There's no footage of Wilde either - its not hard to realise that he's p4p a bigger puncher.

Because you have a record documenting Wildes knock outs. Its far harder to say if he was faster than Canto without actually looking at the pair in action.

Its passing off opinion as fact by saying the concensus of experts is that Burley has the better skillset. What experts have come out and said that? What experts witnessed both guys and drew a comparison? Who can say with real authority having never seen Burley fight? You say the only area Ward has an advantage in is strength? I would suspect he has a better inside game than Burley for instance. And if he could impose that on him he has every chance of winning.

You are comparing first hand information with Ward against second and third hand information across a huge gap in eras. We dont need footage to tell if one fighter was great or not but in head to head matches its very important if you want to try and get any kind of decent picture. Personally I think these fantasy fights involving fighters from vastly different times that we have no footage of can only throw up wildly speculative answers as not being able to see a fighter in action is a massive disadvantage. Boxing is fought in the ring, not on paper.

As it happens, as I posted previously, I happen to agree that the documented style of Burley which has been likened to Jones would be the kind of style that I believe Ward would find hard to dea with. But how can I go out on limb and say how fast Burley was?, how he copes with the size difference? When I havent seen him in action properly?

We're in danger of going back to the "old timers" debate.

I never saw the generalship of Alexander - but those who did thought it was outstanding. I didn't see the campaigns of Rommel in North Africa. I haven't heard Paganini play - although I have heard/tried some of his works. I didn't see Man o War run - other than Windy - I don't know of anyone who has - so I have to trust the written avowed testimony of some decent sources.

Its prediction, not life or death. Were you to put a gun to the head and pick a winner - you'd pick the guy you'd seen or avoid picking at all. But putatively? I will trust second hand evidence on his style and skills.

The evidence points to Burley struggling with bigger men with lightning jabs. Ward is the bigger man, but he doesn't have a jab of lightning - although he does have an excellent command of space. But compared with Burley? No-one had a better command of space than Burley - that was one of his great strengths.
------------------------
Az - you do realise that your last statement was ridiculous right?

I must say I dont see this being about old timers at all. Its about making comparisons. It dosnt matter what era Burley competes in if one cant see him fight it makes it hard to judge him in head to head fights. I dont know how anyone can say with any real authority that Grebs threw more punches than Calzaghe, that Wilde was faster than Canto, that Burleys reflexes were superior to Jones without being able to draw a direct comparison.

You dont need to see to believe that a fighter was great, which Burley undoubtadly was, but you do need to see to form an accurate firsthand opinion. And this is what its about. Essentially you are comparing a second hand opinion of Burley to a first hand one of Ward. To make matters worse, theres almost no common ground between the two, nobody alive who witnessed both in action and could judge and they existed in very different eras. There is plenty of contempary opinion that can be found giving a glowing appraisal to Burley, but I could provide lots of articles, headlines and quotes from journalists, trainers and fighters which give a huge amount of praise to Ward. I could bury you under an avalanche of material which portray guys like Tyson, Jones and de la Hoya as the best fighters in history.

Somebody like Futch saying that Burley was the quickest or best hes seen is fine - but he never saw Ward so his opinion is restricted and it doesnt equate to a comparison. If he had seen both in action regularly and said one was quicker than the other I would accept it as a source but how much credibility would you give to someone saying Ward was quicker than Burley if they had never seen Burley fight? Is this not the kind of thing you give out to the likes of azania for on a regular basis?

At the end of the day its hard to beat watching a fighter first hand to get an evaluation of them, so not being able to that is pretty debilitating and leads to a large amount speculation and often inconsistencies. I tend to view these hypotheticals involving fighters I havent seen to ones I have as like comparing apples to oranges so I approach them with this in mind and would rarely come to an assertive conclusion. I am much more confident in predicting outcomes where I have watched fighters in action, and find that the more of two fighters I have seen the better my prediction tends to be. I would take watching footage of Burley in his meaningful fights over a library of quotes and second hand info when trying to form an accurate assessment of him in a head to head fight. I would question the accuracy of predictions involving fighters that noone has seen and certainly wouldnt be confident in my own choices regarding them.

Comparisons are we've seen fighters who Burley fought so can guage his speed compared to Ward by judging them, Charles, Robinson and Moore were three of the finest technicians in the sport so seeing Burley favourably compared to them we can assume he would be better than Ward. As for speed well with his level being so far ahead of that of Ward it isn't the be all and end all, he is regardless of weight a better fighter who was a front foot counter puncher capable of initiating the action. He had great durability and chin so taking everything into account don't see why it's fanciful to consider him light years ahead of Ward who has thus far only beaten Kessler and Froch, no offence to either but they don't compare to Burleys level off opposition.

He has been massively over rated off the back of winning the super six which was a good achievement but has to be taken in context, the fighters he was facing were not great.

Not fanciful to suggest Burly is better than Ward, perhaps so to say light years. But then again perhaps not.


Burly could do it all- slug, slip, counter, box, all while being in complete balance. Fritzie Zivic bought Burly's contract to avoid facing him! Burly, like most great fighters, had a style that allowed for him to make adjustments based upon who he was facing. Eddie Futch said Burly was the best all round fighter that he had ever seen and Archie Moore said Burly was the toughest. Incredible timing and movement including slipping and sidesteps, pinpoint counterpunching, he kept up a remarkable pace throughout an entire fight.

Burly's opposition FAR outstrips Hagler's in the toughness department, yet he still managed 50 knockouts in 83 wins. He stopped a prime Holman Williams who had never been stopped in 114 fights and would only be stopped 2 more times in his 188 bout career(once to a prime Archie Moore and another on a cut to Jose Basora.) He stopped a prime Jack Chase twice and also Shorty Hogue. Both were top men and had iron jaws. He also dropped Archie Moore four times.


He had a set of whiskers. 98 fights and no stoppage losses. Burly was down on one knee v Charles(who apparently hit him when he was down, of course beaten by the great Charles but only 19 and having hand troubles,) and was down twice v Marshall- who is the only fighter to actually knock Burly off his feet. Burly also touched down briefly against Mike Barto(knee touched the floor.)


How would we view Burly today one wonders, if he had a decisive UD over Ray Robinson?

Got to say Manos is right on this one, nobody on here has seen enough of Burley to say with any degree of confidence that he walks through Ward, including myself and I am as near to obsessed with the guy as could be considered healthy. What also should not be overlooked is at his best Charley probably did not weigh more than 150, which means he would be conceding nigh on 20 pounds to Ward, not a gap that should be readily dismissed. On the Hall of Fame thread Manos showed that Charley's form could be become a little patchy once in with the naturally bigger guys such as Charles, Bivins and Moore.

Despite all that I think I would still have to pick him in this one, firstly don't think Ward yet has proven enough to be considered in the class of those guys and also don't think he has anywhere near the dig they possess. One of his chief assets appears to be his roughhouse abilities but in Burley he is meeting someone who went 2-1 with Zivic (3-0 in most observers minds) so he has prven he can handle someone who makes Ward look like a choir boy. Also he is not going to be tied up on the inside as easily as Froch was, and Ward is certainly not going to find Burley hanging his chin out to dry as Carl did, and as Moore said if you thorw against Charley you need to make sure it lands because you are getting countered all night.

Think points is probably the pick because Charley tended to need some fire in his belly to really set loose on a guy and it only tended to be when he considered a guy cocky and Ward certainly does not appear to be this so for me the pick woul have to be Burley on points.

I've seen enough of Burley and his opposition to make a judgement i'm happy with, his form against the bigger guys is patchy but they are all of a very high calibre, even men like Marshall and Williams are a step up from Ward at the current time.

Herman Jaggery wrote:This is a better crop too. Magine if Calzaghe had a Ward, Froch and Dirrell to deal with.

I said this on anothert thread, but whats the deal with people rating Dirrell so highly?

The few times I've seen him he's just stinks out the place... If Dirrell was around Calzaghe's era without the 'Super 6' tourney to associate him with, I imagine he would just be labelled as another bum on JC's win list.

Hell, if the Tocker Pudwell's of this world was around today and managed to get a place in the super 6, he would probably be rated much higher than he is today... granted I don't rate Pudwell at all, but sometime I feel some fighters get an extra leg up on perceived ability just because they where involved in the Super 6 tournament.

kevchadders wrote:granted I don't rate Pudwell at all,

Philistine.

rowley wrote:

kevchadders wrote:granted I don't rate Pudwell at all,

Philistine.

Why do you have to bring race into everything?

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

rowley wrote:

kevchadders wrote:granted I don't rate Pudwell at all,

Philistine.

Why do you have to bring race into everything?

Because I'm racist.

kevchadders wrote:

Herman Jaggery wrote:This is a better crop too. Magine if Calzaghe had a Ward, Froch and Dirrell to deal with.

I said this on anothert thread, but whats the deal with people rating Dirrell so highly?

The few times I've seen him he's just stinks out the place... If Dirrell was around Calzaghe's era without the 'Super 6' tourney to associate him with, I imagine he would just be labelled as another bum on JC's win list.

Hell, if the Tocker Pudwell's of this world was around today and managed to get a place in the super 6, he would probably be rated much higher than he is today... granted I don't rate Pudwell at all, but sometime I feel some fighters get an extra leg up on perceived ability just because they where involved in the Super 6 tournament.

I don't really see the comparison to be honest.

Entering the tournament, Dirrell was an highly-rated, unbeaten prospect with an impressive amateur background (including winning an Olympic bronze).

Tocker Pudwill on the other hand, was seen as a journeyman barely above clubfighter level.

kevchadders wrote:

Herman Jaggery wrote:This is a better crop too. Magine if Calzaghe had a Ward, Froch and Dirrell to deal with.

I said this on anothert thread, but whats the deal with people rating Dirrell so highly?

The few times I've seen him he's just stinks out the place... If Dirrell was around Calzaghe's era without the 'Super 6' tourney to associate him with, I imagine he would just be labelled as another bum on JC's win list.

Hell, if the Tocker Pudwell's of this world was around today and managed to get a place in the super 6, he would probably be rated much higher than he is today... granted I don't rate Pudwell at all, but sometime I feel some fighters get an extra leg up on perceived ability just because they where involved in the Super 6 tournament.

I don't rate him either @kevchadders. In fact I think it's going to end quite brutally one day for him, and we'll hear no more. But when he's in with someone whose power he doesn't fear, he can look rather good. He might just have the style to make Calzaghe look ordinary, stay on the outside, and nick a points win off JC.

Dont have any problem with people picking Burley to win at all. My issue is making statements along the lines that he controls distance better, hes quicker, hes harder to hit etc all of which are nigh on impossible to tell with any accuracy without watching both guys in action.

Theres enough in his record to indicate his class, although as rowley says his patchier form against Williams, Bivins, Charles, Lytell, Marshall and so on while giving away weight indicates his comfort level was closer to welter than super middle. But making fact like statements that are wildly specualtive isnt valid.

I bet if azania claimed that Calzaghe had a better workrate or engine than Greb it wouldnt be long before someone waded in with the obvious "how do you know?".

Burly v Ward (12rds) - No idea.

Ward v Hagler (12rds) - Hagler late stoppage win, overcoming early deficit.

Ward v Hagler (15rds) - Hagler late stoppage win, overcoming early deficit.

Hagler v Froch (15rds) - Hagler TKO10, with Froch still standing but battered silly at the end.

manos de piedra wrote:Dont have any problem with people picking Burley to win at all. My issue is making statements along the lines that he controls distance better, hes quicker, hes harder to hit etc all of which are nigh on impossible to tell with any accuracy without watching both guys in action.

Theres enough in his record to indicate his class, although as rowley says his patchier form against Williams, Bivins, Charles, Lytell, Marshall and so on while giving away weight indicates his comfort level was closer to welter than super middle. But making fact like statements that are wildly specualtive isnt valid.

I bet if azania claimed that Calzaghe had a better workrate or engine than Greb it wouldnt be long before someone waded in with the obvious "how do you know?".

Greb? That guy.........

I'm happy to take eye witness testimony on the older fighters while you're not, seems little point in going over the same point every single time, you put your point across eloquently enough but after a while it gets tedious.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I'm happy to take eye witness testimony on the older fighters while you're not, seems little point in going over the same point every single time, you put your point across eloquently enough but after a while it gets tedious.

What eye witness testimony has said Burley is faster than Ward?

We are talking comparisons here. Nobody was around to compare them both. You can use eyewitness testimony to say Burley was fast, but it gives no indication of how fast in comparison to Ward.

I can use eyewitness testimony to say Calzaghe throws more punches than Greb and had a better workrate that being the case.

I suppose Fleischer saying Fitzsimmons hit hard means he was a harder puncher than Tyson?

Big difference is i've seen enough of Burleys counterparts fight to make a fairly decent assumption of his skill, speed and general ability while the same goes for Greb. If Burley is considered quicker than the likes of Charles and Robinson I can wager he's quicker than Ward too.

manos de piedra wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I'm happy to take eye witness testimony on the older fighters while you're not, seems little point in going over the same point every single time, you put your point across eloquently enough but after a while it gets tedious.

What eye witness testimony has said Burley is faster than Ward?

We are talking comparisons here. Nobody was around to compare them both. You can use eyewitness testimony to say Burley was fast, but it gives no indication of how fast in comparison to Ward.

I can use eyewitness testimony to say Calzaghe throws more punches than Greb and had a better workrate that being the case.

I suppose Fleischer saying Fitzsimmons hit hard means he was a harder puncher than Tyson?

YOu have to realise that some sacred cows are not supposed to be touched or questioned. Fitz hit harder than Tyson. Rocky hit harder that Shavers or Foreman. Moore said so. The same Moore who lost to a welter. Never question the sepia generation.....it gets tedious.

manos de piedra wrote:Dont have any problem with people picking Burley to win at all. My issue is making statements along the lines that he controls distance better, hes quicker, hes harder to hit etc all of which are nigh on impossible to tell with any accuracy without watching both guys in action.

Theres enough in his record to indicate his class, although as rowley says his patchier form against Williams, Bivins, Charles, Lytell, Marshall and so on while giving away weight indicates his comfort level was closer to welter than super middle. But making fact like statements that are wildly specualtive isnt valid.

I bet if azania claimed that Calzaghe had a better workrate or engine than Greb it wouldnt be long before someone waded in with the obvious "how do you know?".

I doubt it.

For me - if someone like Futch were to say that Burley was the most complete fighter he ever saw - and we know he saw Ali, Frazier, Robinson - then I'd back that opinion if it concurred with the majority.

There's no footage of Greb - but all concerned with him report blistering speed, angles, workrate.

I take your point with regards and reference to head2heads - as there is a decent argument to say that it is a valid one.

We either try to make head to head picks based on written testimony and limited footage or we don't altogether. As I said, I am comfortable basing my opinions on what I have read and seen.

So when I say he controls distance better - in the only filmed fight of his that I know of - his analysis of space is fantastic and in my opinion better than Wards. Those who knew him reported that he was an amazing judge of timing and distance - and these people we know saw the likes of Sugar Ray in action. Archie Moore shared the ring with him and reported him as nigh on impossible to hit as well as being a phenomenal puncher. Now Ward does have fantastic fundamentals - but he's not quite that good in my opinion. Does Ward beat Archie Moore? Not for me - although I accept it would be close (archie in his younger MW to LHW days).

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Big difference is i've seen enough of Burleys counterparts fight to make a fairly decent assumption of his skill, speed and general ability while the same goes for Greb. If Burley is considered quicker than the likes of Charles and Robinson I can wager he's quicker than Ward too.

You can make general assumptions as to to the level he was on, not the subtle x,y,z that make up a boxer with regards to predicting a head to head match.

If you want to say Burley beats Ward because he was able to beat Moore thats fine. But theres no real way of knowing if he controlled distance better, was quicker, had a better jab, was harder to hit and so on. Theres no eye witness that can draw a direct comparison and Im unwilling to accept these asertions as fact when its pure speculation.

Im happy enough to go off eye witnesses and his record to say he was a quality boxer but not to draw direct comparisons which dont exist.

Its a secondary comparison Manos.

Archie says Burley controls distance better than he does. I've seen some of Moore's control of distance and it was sublime - and better than Ward's. So in that component of a head to head - I don't believe it is particularly unreasonable to then follow with "Burley has better control of distance than Ward".

Apparently, Jimmy Wilde could punch quite hard. However - no-one who saw Wilde saw Giovani Segura.

Were I to say that Wilde hits harder than Segura - would this be deemed a "comparison which (doesn't) exist"?

Because we're talking about one of the all time p4p punchers being compared with a modern alphabelt champion.

oxring wrote:Its a secondary comparison Manos.

Archie says Burley controls distance better than he does. I've seen some of Moore's control of distance and it was sublime - and better than Ward's. So in that component of a head to head - I don't believe it is particularly unreasonable to then follow with "Burley has better control of distance than Ward".

Apparently, Jimmy Wilde could punch quite hard. However - no-one who saw Wilde saw Giovani Segura.

Were I to say that Wilde hits harder than Segura - would this be deemed a "comparison which (doesn't) exist"?

Because we're talking about one of the all time p4p punchers being compared with a modern alphabelt champion.

Exactly Oxy, for me secondary comparisons are valid ones, having seen the likes of Charles and Moore fight both of whom are better than Ward in almost every department to then see Burley favourable compared to them indicates to me he too is better than Ward in almost every way.

Having someone say that Fitzsimmons hits hard means nothing by itself but to see him compared to Dempsey with regards to punch power indicates how hard he did hit.

oxring wrote:Its a secondary comparison Manos.

Archie says Burley controls distance better than he does. I've seen some of Moore's control of distance and it was sublime - and better than Ward's. So in that component of a head to head - I don't believe it is particularly unreasonable to then follow with "Burley has better control of distance than Ward".

Apparently, Jimmy Wilde could punch quite hard. However - no-one who saw Wilde saw Giovani Segura.

Were I to say that Wilde hits harder than Segura - would this be deemed a "comparison which (doesn't) exist"?

Because we're talking about one of the all time p4p punchers being compared with a modern alphabelt champion.

You have a knock out ratio and list of knock outs for Wilde so you can tangibly draw from that. But I would say its pretty speculative if Wilde hits harder than Galaxy for example.

If you think Burley controlled distance better than Moore based on what Moore said (who never fought or saw Ward) thats fine but it isnt a fact and isnt supported by a jury of eye witnesses which you are making out. Its hugely speculative.

I have Foreman on record saying the Klitschkos would beat him, Briggs on record saying Vitali is better and hits harder than Lewis, McCallum saying Jones was the best he fought and one of the best ever.......

Nothing is a fact when comparing boxers but i'm more than happy to compare Burley to Ward via the likes of Moore who from what i've seen does everything better but has less speed.

manos de piedra wrote:If you think Burley controlled distance better than Moore based on what Moore said (who never fought or saw Ward) thats fine but it isnt a fact and isnt supported by a jury of eye witnesses which you are making out. Its hugely speculative.

Manos - we're on an online boxing forum discussing a putative fight between a legend of the sport and an extremely talented youngster - where the legend in question has been dead for the last 19 years and the youngster didn't take up boxing until 2 years after Burley's death.

To me, this would seem a rather speculative scenario. Picking winners based upon sound reasoning and the evidence we have available - would seem to be a perfectly logical thing to do.

I cannot prove my suspicion that Burley was better at controlling space than Ward, nor can I prove that Alexander was a better cavalry commander than Ney. Proving it would require a time machine - a luxury that will never be possible (last year's Physics, this year it may be possible).

However dismissing logical reasoning and evidence as being "wildly speculative" mandates us to avoid picking winners of such old-v-modern fantasy fights.

Were we to do this, the forum would be a quieter place and Az wouldn't have a drum to bang.

Isn't it also hugely speculative to say Ward beats Calzaghe for instance, they have after all never fought eachother so it's largely guesswork right? Seems to be it's ok to speculate on modern fighters but not old timers.

oxring wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:If you think Burley controlled distance better than Moore based on what Moore said (who never fought or saw Ward) thats fine but it isnt a fact and isnt supported by a jury of eye witnesses which you are making out. Its hugely speculative.

Manos - we're on an online boxing forum discussing a putative fight between a legend of the sport and an extremely talented youngster - where the legend in question has been dead for the last 19 years and the youngster didn't take up boxing until 2 years after Burley's death.

To me, this would seem a rather speculative scenario. Picking winners based upon sound reasoning and the evidence we have available - would seem to be a perfectly logical thing to do.

I cannot prove my suspicion that Burley was better at controlling space than Ward, nor can I prove that Alexander was a better cavalry commander than Ney. Proving it would require a time machine - a luxury that will never be possible (last year's Physics, this year it may be possible).

However dismissing logical reasoning and evidence as being "wildly speculative" mandates us to avoid picking winners of such old-v-modern fantasy fights.

Were we to do this, the forum would be a quieter place and Az wouldn't have a drum to bang.

oxring wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:If you think Burley controlled distance better than Moore based on what Moore said (who never fought or saw Ward) thats fine but it isnt a fact and isnt supported by a jury of eye witnesses which you are making out. Its hugely speculative.

Manos - we're on an online boxing forum discussing a putative fight between a legend of the sport and an extremely talented youngster - where the legend in question has been dead for the last 19 years and the youngster didn't take up boxing until 2 years after Burley's death.

To me, this would seem a rather speculative scenario. Picking winners based upon sound reasoning and the evidence we have available - would seem to be a perfectly logical thing to do.

I cannot prove my suspicion that Burley was better at controlling space than Ward, nor can I prove that Alexander was a better cavalry commander than Ney. Proving it would require a time machine - a luxury that will never be possible (last year's Physics, this year it may be possible).

However dismissing logical reasoning and evidence as being "wildly speculative" mandates us to avoid picking winners of such old-v-modern fantasy fights.

Were we to do this, the forum would be a quieter place and Az wouldn't have a drum to bang.

But you make statement like "nobody controlled distance better than Burley" or insinuate that there a vast number of experts willing to testify that Burley had better skills than Ward when there isnt any.

I dont mind you having your own opinion on who would win but, as with Tancy Lee, you are presenting things as fact when they are not.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Isn't it also hugely speculative to say Ward beats Calzaghe for instance, they have after all never fought eachother so it's largely guesswork right? Seems to be it's ok to speculate on modern fighters but not old timers.

Where have I said its not ok to speculate? You seem to draw conclusions where there are none.

Black fighters back then were so underpaid, and so limited in the bouts they could get that they usually ended up fighting very often and usually fighting each other. Thus there developed an ethic among these fighters that they would generally not try to knock each other out. There were two reasons for this (a) promoters were less likely to match you with someone you had badly beaten before; and (b) a fighter who had been knocked out might not be able to find another fight again soon.


Archie Moore discussed the phenomenon in later life, and even talked about how he and other black fighters would be ostracised, and perhaps 'punished,' by their colleagues if they knocked one of them out. This was, in large part, a consequence of the economic realities black fighters faced during that era. Consequently they tended to fight safer, and hence more boring fights out of a sense of economic self-preservation. An unintended consequence of this is that they were less attractive to boxing promoters as a drawing card.


There are many respected boxing authorities who consider Charley Burley, not Sugar Ray Robinson, the greatest ever fighter pound for pound. But with the above in mind, can't help but wonder just how many of Burley's fights may indeed have been little more than sparring sessions?

Herman Jaggery wrote:


There are many respected boxing authorities who consider Charley Burley, not Sugar Ray Robinson, the greatest ever fighter pound for pound. But with the above in mind, can't help but wonder just how many of Burley's fights may indeed have been little more than sparring sessions?

Herman it is a fair question but in Burley's case probably very few, the main reason Charley was deined so many an opportunity was his point blank refusal to take part in any fight that was not 100% on the level.

Great point , Jeff.

As did the other members of the black murderers as well as Moore and Charles.

manos de piedra wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Isn't it also hugely speculative to say Ward beats Calzaghe for instance, they have after all never fought eachother so it's largely guesswork right? Seems to be it's ok to speculate on modern fighters but not old timers.

Where have I said its not ok to speculate? You seem to draw conclusions where there are none.

As i've said nothing is fact but you seem to have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to the old timers, you never seem to jump in and accuse those of talking about modern fighters as passing opinion off as fact. I'm happy to listen to Moores opinion which leads me to the conclusion that Burley controlled distance better than Ward.